33 ms·

It's interesting to note that Julian Assange didn't demonstrate control of the wikileaks private key during his Reddit AMA 1 month ago: https://www.reddit.com/r

It's interesting to note that Julian Assange didn't demonstrate control of the wikileaks private key during his Reddit AMA 1 month ago: https://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/5n58sm/i_am_julian_assange_founder_of_wikileaks_ask_me/dc8pgqr/ https://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/5n58sm/i_am_julian_as... Considering the political situation unfolding in the US and who this leak weakens, there is some evidence that wikileaks is not in the hands of a neutral party. There is clear motive right now for undermining the CIA. This may not have been an act of altruism like Snowden. While shockingly damaging to the American arsenal, the CIA is by far the biggest loser. This comment was immediately down voted on Reddit. Someone is seeking to control the narrative.

Daishiman 10y ago
I think that anyone who has been following the Wikileaks social media accounts has noticed what can only be described as a blatant subverting of those accounts by another party.
- tmccrmck 10y ago
  What are some examples?
  - eli_gottlieb 10y ago
    Julian Assange can't demonstrate control over the Wikileaks key. That's a pretty damn solid canary for control over Wikileaks being out of the proper hands.
    - deleted 10y ago
      [deleted]
    - coldtea 10y ago
      Can't or won't?
  - Daishiman 10y ago
    The insane, continued obsession over Hillary's emails and the phrasing of the social media accounts is definitely not congruent with the clear-headed logic and essays that Assange has written in the Wikileaks manifesto, "Cypherpunks", and others. The Wikileaks Twitter handle just used a Fox News video as evidence for something. You could say the man's gone insane, but the theory of these accounts and the WL org being subverted by a state power sounds more plausible at this point.
    - fnordfnordfnord 10y ago
      Hmm. Someone do some frequency analysis on the tweets and compare the date ranges before and after the Assange hiatus.
      - wadeboggs 10y ago
        edits to do list
    - stale2002 10y ago
      What are you talking about. Julian absolutely hates Hillary, and for good reason. Hillary and the Obama administration hardcore went after him. Of course he hates them. So him being biased is completely expected.
      - Daishiman 10y ago
        So does every government for which the have leaks. They have tons of enemies and yet they have never shown the ridiculous, singular obsession. It is just not congruent with the rest of their reasoning.
        stale2002 10y ago
        It is because of Hillary that he has been held in the embassy for years. Julian has tons of enemies, but only one of them forced him to stay locked up for years.
  - astronautjones 10y ago
    http://www.salon.com/2016/10/14/bill-clinton-bimbo-poll-wikileaks-merchandise-shows-the-websites-real-bias/ http://www.salon.com/2016/10/14/bill-clinton-bimbo-poll-wiki...
  - chiaro 10y ago
    Feeding alt-right conspiracy theories 1. https://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/794450623404113920 https://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/794450623404113920 2. https://www.dailydot.com/layer8/wikileaks-echoes-tweet-anti-semitism/ https://www.dailydot.com/layer8/wikileaks-echoes-tweet-anti-...
rdiddly 10y ago
Yeah that's what I say when I'm downvoted too. My voice of freedom must not be silenced etc.
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
wamsachel 10y ago
But part of these leaks implicate the Russians, as their toy chest has been exposed too.
- oculusthrift 10y ago
  everyone knows russia does it. their whole game is, "see. everyone oppresses their citizens. america is just as bad as us and real democracy can't exist"
  - coldtea 10y ago
    Where everyone = every American that knows very little about foreign affairs (and probably couldn't even point Iowa on the map), but believes all the crap they see in mainstream media, from WMDs to the latest "Russians hacked our elections" -- and always roots for the current "enemy du jour" of the establishment. Aside from the constant pressure and threats, and the constant military presence around its borders, few in Russia would give a flying duck what the US does. Seriously, why don't people just get a passport and try to talk to people around the world to see what they actually think?
    - oculusthrift 10y ago
      yes everyone who disagrees with you must be ignorant and uninformed.
      - ruleabidinguser 10y ago
        Any other rezson to disagree? This is literally the only reason to believe in your position over another
      - coldtea 10y ago
        On particular topics, like whether the earth is flat, or the one I mention above, yes.
    - turndown 10y ago
djsumdog 10y ago
> This may not have been an act of altruism like Snowden I'm still really surprised no one questions the Snowden narrative. A man who earned $200k a year, worked remotely in Hawaii with his smoking hot wife, suddenly decided he has a conscience, either collected data slowly over time or did a massive data dump and released all this information to Greenwald and Der Sepgiel. Then he flees to Russia where he openly tweets against Russian policy. Unlike many other stories, there were no where near the level of government denial. Media outlets ate it up without looking into any of it. I really feel like Snowden was an intentional leak, either to show the NSA could proclaim their spying abilities and no one would be able to stop them, or they wanted to profess they had capabilities they don't actually have. In either case, the US government is still spying relentlessly, creating war zones and expanding military powers. People say I'm a "tin foil hat conspiracy theorist" when I say that the CIA most likely created ISIS to destabilize Syria. It's not crazy, it's what the CIA has been doing for decades. The 1973 Coupe in Chile, Bay of Pigs, School of the Americas, Iranian Contras .. the list is as long as you want to make it. You should question each "leak."
- wavefunction 10y ago
  Snowden was living in Hawaii with his girlfriend, not his wife. Facts are important if you want to promote your theories/wild fantasies.
- yellow_viper 10y ago
  I agree that they could've done it, and they've done stuff like this in the past. The pros outweigh the cons. The reasons you've listed don't seem 'worth it' to me. Maybe there's some alternative motive we're missing - but I doubt it was to prove they couldn't be stopped even after exposal.
- FLUX-YOU 10y ago
  If Snowden was fake, and someone can make the NSA and government's response to his leaks look as genuine as they did, this is going to be someone so powerful, well-connected, and invisible, that's it's likely it's not even human. Every time you come up with a complex conspiracy theory, ask yourself how easy it would be to orchestrate that and just handle all of the logistics of it with zero leaks and 100% undying loyalty without getting stabbed in the back yourself. People did question it -- he was getting spy accusations as soon as Russia let him in, but then they looked at the actual documents and realized that Snowden is irrelevant as far as the content is concerned. You don't need Snowden's motivations to interpret any of that. What benefit does it serve you to suddenly get all of your enemies and frenemies to suddenly change all of their communication methods to avoid the NSA? You're spying on them without them knowing about it -- that's exactly what you want!
badloginagain 10y ago
It absolutely provides the Trump Administration with cassus belli to take punitive measures against the CIA. WikiLeaks appeared to have received the dump quite recently. This is all conjecture, but this could be seen as a 'civil cyber war'. The Executive branch suffers from leaks, followed by an evisceration of the CIA hacking capabilities? Trumps love of the intelligence community is well known, and the scale of these leaks can be seen as a warning to the other agencies: the Executive branch will accept severe destabilization risks to protect itself. Will be interesting to see if things escalate.
- wavefunction 10y ago
  Are you positing that Trump or members of his administration have somehow released these CIA resources? Or just that WikiLeaks is bringing attention to these resources and their current "libre" status in the wild?
  - badloginagain 10y ago
    Im stating the possibility that the Executive Branch made available the means to doxx the CIA. The timing, the target, and the vector of attack all line up very nicely.
    - jdironman 10y ago
      That sounds like such a CIA move. Always attacking indirectly.
      - deleted 10y ago
        [deleted]
    - coldtea 10y ago
      We had such leaks all the time during Obama's presidency (what with Snowden et al). So, no reason at all to assume anything particular changed, except that people want to assume something -- because Trump.
samstave 10y ago
>* Someone is seeking to control the narrative.* Uh... welcome to /r/conspiracy....
- castis 10y ago
  Is the concept of a 3rd party attempting to steer a conversation so hard to believe?
  - vlunkr 10y ago
    Is someone downvoting a comment on reddit so hard to believe?
  - samstave 10y ago
    exactly my point... it has been said for years, decades, centuries... NO - not hard to believe... but interesting the unveiling we are seeing now... forgive all typos as my fingers are experiencing the chilling effect ( my hands are cold... makes it hard to type)
- fnordfnordfnord 10y ago
  Don't be naive. Gaslighting people on the internet is a billion dollar industry.
- lubesGordi 10y ago
  Seriously. This is the exact dialog that has been running on reddit for months (since Sept 2016 at least). People are constantly asking for Assange to provide 'proof of life' etc. They basically just assume Wikileaks is compromised for any number of weak reasons (typically many weak reasons taken in sum), and then jump straight to the conclusion that there is narrative controlling. The likely reason his post was downvoted was because the notion is played out.
eli_gottlieb 10y ago
It looks like someone wants to pull an Erdogan, and they know that the CIA, FBI, and NSA (the American security deep-state) are the chief obstacle to their goal. Which makes sense, considering it's those agencies who are usually responsible for both preventing foreign intrusion into our government (if the enemy is foreign) and mounting coups d'etat (if the enemy is domestic).
- losvedir 10y ago
  > It looks like someone wants to pull an Erdogan, and they know that the CIA, FBI, and NSA (the American security deep-state) are the chief obstacle to their goal. Which makes sense, considering it's those agencies who are usually responsible for both preventing foreign intrusion into our government (if the enemy is foreign) and mounting coups d'etat (if the enemy is domestic). I think you're really overstating things here. While Turkey's military may have mounted coups to restore secular order in the past, that's a peculiarity of their history. To think that the CIA, FBI, or NSA would serve a similar role in the U.S. is unrealistic. The times I can think of off the top of my head that they've gone against the law it hasn't been to the people of America's benefit, to say the least. Besides of which, it's not even a reasonable comparison. The intelligence agencies aren't comparable to the military. If God forbid there were a coup in the U.S. it would involve the military, and they would probably be following Mattis, who is on Trump's side at the moment. Lastly, come back to me when Trump is rewriting the Constitution and jailing journalists and judges by the thousands. Until then, this comment comes across to me as either paranoid hysteria about the U.S.'s situation or tragically belittling Turkey's.
  - eli_gottlieb 10y ago
    I didn't mean that the American military or security state have mounted coups in the past. I meant that the current occupants of the Executive Branch seem to be going after them as if they were likely to do so in the future. This may not indicate that any of our institutions actually plan to mount a coup, but it indicates that the people attacking those institutions fear their plans are coup-worthy.
ismay 10y ago
He very clearly explained his motives for not doing so in the AMA, and he gave an alternate POL by reading from the blockchain. This whole narrative of Wikileaks not being neutral is a very weird story, because they've never published anything that wasn't verified to be true. Since that's something they can't be attacked on, it seems that the strategy for discrediting Wikileaks has now become to accuse them of association with the Russians. Assange touches on this in the AMA as well. Beyond that, only speculation remains. So why even give a shit? As long as what they're publishing is true, which it has always been so far. Let them fight each other with the truth and the people will be better off. Nothing you've said changes the validity of this article, in fact, it only distracts from it. So I'd say you're doing us a disservice by distracting from the real story here.
- decisiveness 10y ago
  Truth or not, I'm curious to know how the high probability that all content is curated doesn't bother you? I can't find one leak that's been damaging to Putin's agenda. That doesn't prove Russia is in control of the site, but it's curious that every single leak has been either damaging to the United States, other parties that have not had good relations with Russia or relatively inconsequential to either. The fact that Assange cannot verify he produces the content of his site only furthers the probability of Russia having seized possession of it, given there exists no damaging information to Putin's regime. Would it not be better if those leaks were exposed along with everything else?
- raverbashing 10y ago
  You can publish only true facts and still push a narrative
  - freyr 10y ago
    > You can publish only true facts Can we go back to just calling them "facts"? A statement can be true or false, but a fact is true. You're playing into the idea that there are "false facts" or "alternative facts." There aren't. Those are lies or errors.
caminante 10y ago
edit: tl:dr; I don't think Assange signing a message with a private key would disprove he's not compromised (which was the implication). It's naive to say otherwise. > It's interesting to note that Julian Assange didn't demonstrate control of the wikileaks private key during his Reddit AMA 1 month ago It's easy to see why Assange didn't oblige, compromised or not. Minor note: the Reddit thread was from Jan 11th. This is relevant because Assange wasn't only asked to verify control of the private key. Assange hadn't appeared in public and skeptics wanted "proof of life." The Reddit comment, currently at 15K upvotes, even includes Assange's response with reasons that talk to the difficulty of maintaining private keys and avoiding taxing precedents like having to provide proof of life all the time. Again, compromised or not, I can understand why Assange wouldn't want to become conditioned to respond to every request for proof of life or locking down private keys.
trendia 10y ago
There are several elements: 1) what the material exposes 2) how it was obtained 3) why it was released We should condemn (2) and (3) even if we condemn (1). That is, a properly functioning society shouldn't need to rely on leaks for corruption and abuse of power to be exposed. At the same time, we should always respond to abuse of power and trust; to do so because we don't want to help "the bad guys" simply creates an environment in which such abuses are tolerated. Similarly, we should not assume that any comment that we disagree with is a conscious manipulation by malicious actors; otherwise, I could just as easily argue that you have some ulterior motive to post your comment.
- knieveltech 10y ago
  I feel like it has been very thoroughly demonstrated that we in the US do not enjoy the comforts of a properly functioning society, and as such leaks are a hard requirement for corruption and abuse of power to be exposed.
- problems 10y ago
  I have to disagree - leaks seem to be the only way that this information gets out and the only way that people seem to care much about privacy.
- throwaway91111 10y ago
  > That is, a properly functioning society shouldn't need to rely on leaks for corruption and abuse of power to be exposed How do you figure? Abuse is just use you don't agree with. If everyone in control is perpetrating the abuse, the only way forward is leaking. See: the Snowden leaks. Those in power have little incentive to restrict it. Leaks are very effective at letting people police their own government.
prodmerc 10y ago
> This comment was immediately down voted on Reddit. Someone is seeking to control the narrative. Oooor, you know, the knee jerk reaction is to downvote you because it's an unpopular opinion. Even I had it for a brief second before I realized 1. You may be right; 2. I don't really give a shit.
revelation 10y ago
I can't believe this warmongering is on top. Yes, maybe ask who is dumping what and question the authenticity, but stop trying to talk up a nuclear war on the basis of downvotes on Reddit.
coldtea 10y ago
>There is clear motive right now for undermining the CIA. And why NOT to undermine the CIA?
- Cookingboy 10y ago
  Because we don't live in a Disney movie where everyone gets along and lives happily ever after? Do you think if we get rid of CIA the Russians will just disband the FSB? The Chinese will just suddenly become transparent and stop all international espionage? The entire world will suddenly love US and try to suck up to the biggest superpower?
  - incompatible 10y ago
    Some of us are not USians. I'd say if your goal is to make people elsewhere in the world love the US, then CIA dirty tricks isn't the way to do it. Dirty tricks by other governments wouldn't do much if the US was a genuinely beneficial influence in the world. At the moment it's not so clear that the US is beneficial, with it doing some things that are useful, but which Trump seems to want to eliminate as soon as possible, and other things that are questionable.
    - Cookingboy 10y ago
      Nope, the goal is not to make the rest of the world love the US. It is to further our own national interest while fucking over our enemies. Just like any other countries that ever existed in the history of human civilization.
      - incompatible 10y ago
        That seems about right. You have to wonder what "national interest" really means though. Something to do with making US billionaires richer than their foreign competitors, I think.
        learc83 10y ago
megablast 10y ago
> There is clear motive right now for undermining the CIA. I think this is irrelevant and distracts from the issue. You are trying to change the narrative. If this is true, this is incredibly bad, and the CIA should be discredited.
- anigbrowl 10y ago
  Why is it bad? Does anyone expect spies not to have spy tools? Espionage is their job, after all.
  - chillwaves 10y ago
    Maybe GP is starting to finally see the CIA how the rest of the world has seen them for say, oh the last 60 years or so.
    - anigbrowl 10y ago
      Yeah, not being American I always thought the USA was quite proud of its spy service, just the Russians are sort of proud of the KGB, the british are proud of MI6 and so on. Large countries have espionage agencies, and every government since ancient history has used spies. Put it this way, I have a Samsung TV and plan to do absolutely nothing about it. If I want something to be really private i discuss it outdoors or write it down by hand on paper. I'm kind of baffled about eh public and the media's inability to distinguish between the ability to carry out espionage and the targets against which it is deployed.
      - Koshkin 10y ago
        > really private Just be sure not to put the TV in your bedroom.
        jerkstate 10y ago
        You mean the bedroom where you charge your phone?
tn13 10y ago
> Someone is seeking to control the narrative. China and Russia immediately come to my mind. China has been influencing american public opinion in more than subtle ways. Hollywood movies are forced or incentivises to show china is positive light. Any material manufactured in China is forced to adopt Chinese world view for example China secretly forces printers to make changes to how Taiwan or Tibet is mention in the books. NN Taleb's recent book face the same issue. The problem with CIA or US Government in general has been they have long stopped using american ideas of freedom, transparency to their own advantage while being transparent and accountable to public. Constant lies, optimising for dubiously useful goals, financial mismanagement etc. has made them less credible and very correctly so. I bet the next thing CIA would try to get Assange killed and facts suppressed only making themselves less and less credible and reducing freedom in the country. When John Kennedy appeared on television during Cuba missile crisis the American public to a large extent believed their president. After what Bush did in Iraq I think American public will not trust another President like that even in the face of a real crisis. I think that is how nations probably fail.
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
Stanish 10y ago
Hello "abandonliberty". Keep in mind, it also very clearly serves the CIA's interests to suggest that Assange is compromised, so people should take those who push this idea with perhaps greater skepticism than they do Assange himself. Also, control of a private key only demonstrates control of the machine on which that key exists, so it is not definitive proof of anything. It is possible Assange's machine was wiped or hacked, or that the person in control of that machine was killed or taken out of play. There have been multiple mysterious deaths associated with Wikileaks in the past couple years. It is conceivable that Assange never was in control of the private key and that one of those people was, in which case it makes perfect sense that he can make multiple convincing videos but not produce that specific key. Finally, the question of whether Wikileaks is "neutral" (whatever that is supposed to mean) is not particularly relevant given their implacable record of truth in reporting. The leaks are most likely completely true, and as new information, should be evaluated independently/objectively. As someone who has read a few histories of the CIA, I can say that anyone who is their enemy is my friend. Their worldview and approach to international action has caused mass human suffering on the world stage for decades, usually in the name of protecting things like unfair trade agreements, destroying unionization efforts & democracy, and eliminating political affiliations that are not in the perceived interests (in terms of world hegemony) of the US government. In popular media this is portrayed as a "necessary evil", but in reality it is a sociopathic service to power that degrades the soul of all humanity. Syria is probably the most recent example. The CIA was envisioning an eerily similar scenario to the one that is playing out right now...in 1986. [0] I encourage you to read up on their origins and history, it is a fascinating if extremely unsettling story. [0] - https://www.cia.gov/library/readingroom/docs/CIA-RDP86T01017R000100770001-5.pdf https://www.cia.gov/library/readingroom/docs/CIA-RDP86T01017...
ThrowIt76113 10y ago
Make no mistake, this is the latest salvo on the modern battlefield. This is not the result of some patriotic citizen trying to rein in what he sees as an abuse of power. This release was used as a weapon. I'm going to be wildly speculative here. Let's assume that the timing of this release helps the Trump administration and smears the US intelligence apparatus writ large. There's only one person on his team who has displayed the forethought, intelligence, and capability necessary to do something like this. Jeff Sessions obviously isn't. Bannon, while an effective and shrewd minister of propaganda not this sophisticated. There is, however, one person who thinks twelve moves ahead like a chess grandmaster. I wonder what, if any, Peter Thiel's role is in all of this
supergirl 10y ago
> This comment was immediately down voted on Reddit. Someone is seeking to control the narrative. Please...
- jwtadvice 10y ago
  The number of times I've had perfectly reasonable ideas downvoted immediately on reddit...
the_cat_kittles 10y ago
im suprised, i thought it was beyond question that wikileaks is basically an attack vector used by russia. i guess you are saying while that may be true, it wasn't clear that assange was actively helping to that end. my thinking is, everyone keeps things private. its fairly probable that there is as much damning info on most other orgs. in the context of wikileaks role in the 2016 election, im sure the RNC would look just as bad if they had all their dirty laundry aired. to my mind, you must consider the consequences and context when leaking, and for that reason i think wikileaks was highly unethical and they are partially culpable. there is no way assange wasnt aware of the motivations behind the leaks. so, to me, he hasn't been impartial- its a sin of inaction, not action. a third, and minor point- when assange was last interviewed on bill maher, he struck me as very careful with his words, and very talking point ish. sounded just like a politician. wouldn't give any play to bill's questions about putting thumb on the scale for trump. not much there, but weird for someone who purports to be even minded, rational, fair and pure to behave like that.
rmxt 10y ago
I'm not quite following... Who does this leak weaken?
mtgx 10y ago
This argument that "they're building a narrative" really rubs me the wrong way. Yes, they're building a narrative - by pointing out the crap the CIA has been doing. This is not unlike how the US used to point out human rights abuses by China, Russia, and so on. If the "narrative" is accurate, then that's on the CIA.
- ActsJuvenile 10y ago
  Is that you, magical tux?
whelp 10y ago
United Hack Of America
shard972 10y ago
> This comment was immediately down voted on Reddit. Someone is seeking to control the narrative. Reddit has been beyond terrible the last year and it didn't recover post election. There always used to be a bias but you could usually drill down into some good back and forths in the comments, now you will only find that if it even exists in heavily downvoted posts along with troll posts.
- throwaway91111 10y ago
  For the nth time, find good subreddits because the front page is terrible.
- yAnonymous 10y ago
  >the last year The Reddit front page has always been terrible. Maybe it was once terrible in your favor, but that doesn't really matter. Ever since it became popular, it has been the best place to influence millions of people and forge opinions.
throwaway91111 10y ago
> This comment was immediately down voted on Reddit. Someone is seeking to control the narrative. I can't tell whether or not this is a joke. A) of course Reddit is manipulated and B) a single vote is within the range of background noise, not signal. A vote don't mean shit.
losvedir 10y ago
> It's interesting to note that Julian Assange didn't demonstrate control of the wikileaks private key during his Reddit AMA 1 month ago So... what's the concern of people? The video seems to be clearly him, not under duress, and current. What more could someone want? If he weren't in control of wikileaks surely he would say something.
- wildrhythms 10y ago
  >seems to be >surely he would say something These aren't exactly reassuring statements, at least not to me.
  - pessimizer 10y ago
    I'm not sure if this was a joke comment or not, but when the lack of evidence becomes evidence of concealment, you've fallen into paranoia. What would you think if your mother seemed to be fine, and you were fairly sure she would say something if she wasn't? Would you suspect someone was keeping her quiet?
    - wildrhythms 10y ago
      My mother also isn't borrowing space in an embassy while pursued by any number of highly sophisticated government agencies. For someone who so often revels in the authenticity of their work, why is the backlash so fierce when their own authenticity is questioned?
lubesGordi 10y ago
So because your completely unproven claim that wikileaks is not in the hands of a neutral party was downvoted, that means the narrative is being controlled!?
gankedfrank 10y ago
I don't know, an argument could be made that there is always cause to undermine state-run intelligence, and I'd like to think Assange knows this, but I don't have enough to be sure about it, obviously.
libertymcateer 10y ago
I appreciate your username.
69mlgsniperdad 10y ago
Reddit.. The narrative has been violently pushed and pulled 1000 directions for a couple years now. I'm not sure exactly what you're suggesting, but are you saying someone is either mind controlling him, or effecting leverage over him to coerce him to become their tool? You do believe it was indeed him in his interview with Hannity a month ago, right?
ntelson1s 10y ago
Or someone is seeking to force a narrative but can't quite decide how to do that while actually making sense and not backpedaling on accusations.
kahrkunne 10y ago
I'm pretty sure that this got immediately downvoted on reddit because it's a crackpot conspiracy theory, not because someone is seeking to control the narrative.
deevolution 10y ago
Honestly I dont care who's behind wikileaks. At the end of the day, they are helping to balance out the power of government.
- jnabholz 10y ago
  I don't see anything in the leaks that couldn't have been (somewhat easily) fabricated. I am still looking.
  - futilefuton 10y ago
    WL, like more normal journalism outlets, relies on its reputation. They are biased, but have a very good track record for not releasing false documents. Also, Snowden says they look real so far because they contain elements only a cleared insider could know. https://twitter.com/Snowden/status/839159736977227777 https://twitter.com/Snowden/status/839159736977227777
yAnonymous 10y ago
You're either a nutjob or you have at least as much of a political motive as you claim Wikileaks have.
mind_bakery 10y ago
As has been demonstrated, the narrative is very easy to manipulate when people are lazy about how they acquire and treat data. Interestingly, this new development could also be a good thing for the CIA. A way to clean the slate as well as a rallying call for new talent with fresh minds, with far less baggage. The proliferation of this tech was inevitable. We need to set standards for responsible use. My perspective constitutionally is that it falls between the 2nd and 4th amendments, depending on intended and actual use. As a data collection tool, it should be treated with the same care as medical data.
erikbye 10y ago
What is the clear motive for undermining CIA and who is the biggest loser?
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]

Daishiman 10y ago

I think that anyone who has been following the Wikileaks social media accounts has noticed what can only be described as a blatant subverting of those accounts by another party.

tmccrmck 10y ago
What are some examples?
- eli_gottlieb 10y ago
  Julian Assange can't demonstrate control over the Wikileaks key. That's a pretty damn solid canary for control over Wikileaks being out of the proper hands.
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
  - coldtea 10y ago
    Can't or won't?
- Daishiman 10y ago
  The insane, continued obsession over Hillary's emails and the phrasing of the social media accounts is definitely not congruent with the clear-headed logic and essays that Assange has written in the Wikileaks manifesto, "Cypherpunks", and others. The Wikileaks Twitter handle just used a Fox News video as evidence for something. You could say the man's gone insane, but the theory of these accounts and the WL org being subverted by a state power sounds more plausible at this point.
  - fnordfnordfnord 10y ago
    Hmm. Someone do some frequency analysis on the tweets and compare the date ranges before and after the Assange hiatus.
    - wadeboggs 10y ago
      edits to do list
  - stale2002 10y ago
    What are you talking about. Julian absolutely hates Hillary, and for good reason. Hillary and the Obama administration hardcore went after him. Of course he hates them. So him being biased is completely expected.
    - Daishiman 10y ago
      So does every government for which the have leaks. They have tons of enemies and yet they have never shown the ridiculous, singular obsession. It is just not congruent with the rest of their reasoning.
      - stale2002 10y ago
        It is because of Hillary that he has been held in the embassy for years. Julian has tons of enemies, but only one of them forced him to stay locked up for years.
- astronautjones 10y ago
  http://www.salon.com/2016/10/14/bill-clinton-bimbo-poll-wikileaks-merchandise-shows-the-websites-real-bias/ http://www.salon.com/2016/10/14/bill-clinton-bimbo-poll-wiki...
- chiaro 10y ago
  Feeding alt-right conspiracy theories 1. https://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/794450623404113920 https://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/794450623404113920 2. https://www.dailydot.com/layer8/wikileaks-echoes-tweet-anti-semitism/ https://www.dailydot.com/layer8/wikileaks-echoes-tweet-anti-...

rdiddly 10y ago

Yeah that's what I say when I'm downvoted too. My voice of freedom must not be silenced etc.

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

wamsachel 10y ago

But part of these leaks implicate the Russians, as their toy chest has been exposed too.

oculusthrift 10y ago
everyone knows russia does it. their whole game is, "see. everyone oppresses their citizens. america is just as bad as us and real democracy can't exist"
- coldtea 10y ago
  Where everyone = every American that knows very little about foreign affairs (and probably couldn't even point Iowa on the map), but believes all the crap they see in mainstream media, from WMDs to the latest "Russians hacked our elections" -- and always roots for the current "enemy du jour" of the establishment. Aside from the constant pressure and threats, and the constant military presence around its borders, few in Russia would give a flying duck what the US does. Seriously, why don't people just get a passport and try to talk to people around the world to see what they actually think?
  - oculusthrift 10y ago
    yes everyone who disagrees with you must be ignorant and uninformed.
    - ruleabidinguser 10y ago
      Any other rezson to disagree? This is literally the only reason to believe in your position over another
    - coldtea 10y ago
      On particular topics, like whether the earth is flat, or the one I mention above, yes.
  - turndown 10y ago

djsumdog 10y ago

> This may not have been an act of altruism like Snowden I'm still really surprised no one questions the Snowden narrative. A man who earned $200k a year, worked remotely in Hawaii with his smoking hot wife, suddenly decided he has a conscience, either collected data slowly over time or did a massive data dump and released all this information to Greenwald and Der Sepgiel. Then he flees to Russia where he openly tweets against Russian policy. Unlike many other stories, there were no where near the level of government denial. Media outlets ate it up without looking into any of it. I really feel like Snowden was an intentional leak, either to show the NSA could proclaim their spying abilities and no one would be able to stop them, or they wanted to profess they had capabilities they don't actually have. In either case, the US government is still spying relentlessly, creating war zones and expanding military powers. People say I'm a "tin foil hat conspiracy theorist" when I say that the CIA most likely created ISIS to destabilize Syria. It's not crazy, it's what the CIA has been doing for decades. The 1973 Coupe in Chile, Bay of Pigs, School of the Americas, Iranian Contras .. the list is as long as you want to make it. You should question each "leak."

wavefunction 10y ago
Snowden was living in Hawaii with his girlfriend, not his wife. Facts are important if you want to promote your theories/wild fantasies.
yellow_viper 10y ago
I agree that they could've done it, and they've done stuff like this in the past. The pros outweigh the cons. The reasons you've listed don't seem 'worth it' to me. Maybe there's some alternative motive we're missing - but I doubt it was to prove they couldn't be stopped even after exposal.
FLUX-YOU 10y ago
If Snowden was fake, and someone can make the NSA and government's response to his leaks look as genuine as they did, this is going to be someone so powerful, well-connected, and invisible, that's it's likely it's not even human. Every time you come up with a complex conspiracy theory, ask yourself how easy it would be to orchestrate that and just handle all of the logistics of it with zero leaks and 100% undying loyalty without getting stabbed in the back yourself. People did question it -- he was getting spy accusations as soon as Russia let him in, but then they looked at the actual documents and realized that Snowden is irrelevant as far as the content is concerned. You don't need Snowden's motivations to interpret any of that. What benefit does it serve you to suddenly get all of your enemies and frenemies to suddenly change all of their communication methods to avoid the NSA? You're spying on them without them knowing about it -- that's exactly what you want!

badloginagain 10y ago

It absolutely provides the Trump Administration with cassus belli to take punitive measures against the CIA. WikiLeaks appeared to have received the dump quite recently. This is all conjecture, but this could be seen as a 'civil cyber war'. The Executive branch suffers from leaks, followed by an evisceration of the CIA hacking capabilities? Trumps love of the intelligence community is well known, and the scale of these leaks can be seen as a warning to the other agencies: the Executive branch will accept severe destabilization risks to protect itself. Will be interesting to see if things escalate.

wavefunction 10y ago
Are you positing that Trump or members of his administration have somehow released these CIA resources? Or just that WikiLeaks is bringing attention to these resources and their current "libre" status in the wild?
- badloginagain 10y ago
  Im stating the possibility that the Executive Branch made available the means to doxx the CIA. The timing, the target, and the vector of attack all line up very nicely.
  - jdironman 10y ago
    That sounds like such a CIA move. Always attacking indirectly.
    - deleted 10y ago
      [deleted]
  - coldtea 10y ago
    We had such leaks all the time during Obama's presidency (what with Snowden et al). So, no reason at all to assume anything particular changed, except that people want to assume something -- because Trump.

samstave 10y ago

>* Someone is seeking to control the narrative.* Uh... welcome to /r/conspiracy....

castis 10y ago
Is the concept of a 3rd party attempting to steer a conversation so hard to believe?
- vlunkr 10y ago
  Is someone downvoting a comment on reddit so hard to believe?
- samstave 10y ago
  exactly my point... it has been said for years, decades, centuries... NO - not hard to believe... but interesting the unveiling we are seeing now... forgive all typos as my fingers are experiencing the chilling effect ( my hands are cold... makes it hard to type)
fnordfnordfnord 10y ago
Don't be naive. Gaslighting people on the internet is a billion dollar industry.
lubesGordi 10y ago
Seriously. This is the exact dialog that has been running on reddit for months (since Sept 2016 at least). People are constantly asking for Assange to provide 'proof of life' etc. They basically just assume Wikileaks is compromised for any number of weak reasons (typically many weak reasons taken in sum), and then jump straight to the conclusion that there is narrative controlling. The likely reason his post was downvoted was because the notion is played out.

eli_gottlieb 10y ago

It looks like someone wants to pull an Erdogan, and they know that the CIA, FBI, and NSA (the American security deep-state) are the chief obstacle to their goal. Which makes sense, considering it's those agencies who are usually responsible for both preventing foreign intrusion into our government (if the enemy is foreign) and mounting coups d'etat (if the enemy is domestic).

losvedir 10y ago
> It looks like someone wants to pull an Erdogan, and they know that the CIA, FBI, and NSA (the American security deep-state) are the chief obstacle to their goal. Which makes sense, considering it's those agencies who are usually responsible for both preventing foreign intrusion into our government (if the enemy is foreign) and mounting coups d'etat (if the enemy is domestic). I think you're really overstating things here. While Turkey's military may have mounted coups to restore secular order in the past, that's a peculiarity of their history. To think that the CIA, FBI, or NSA would serve a similar role in the U.S. is unrealistic. The times I can think of off the top of my head that they've gone against the law it hasn't been to the people of America's benefit, to say the least. Besides of which, it's not even a reasonable comparison. The intelligence agencies aren't comparable to the military. If God forbid there were a coup in the U.S. it would involve the military, and they would probably be following Mattis, who is on Trump's side at the moment. Lastly, come back to me when Trump is rewriting the Constitution and jailing journalists and judges by the thousands. Until then, this comment comes across to me as either paranoid hysteria about the U.S.'s situation or tragically belittling Turkey's.
- eli_gottlieb 10y ago
  I didn't mean that the American military or security state have mounted coups in the past. I meant that the current occupants of the Executive Branch seem to be going after them as if they were likely to do so in the future. This may not indicate that any of our institutions actually plan to mount a coup, but it indicates that the people attacking those institutions fear their plans are coup-worthy.

ismay 10y ago

He very clearly explained his motives for not doing so in the AMA, and he gave an alternate POL by reading from the blockchain. This whole narrative of Wikileaks not being neutral is a very weird story, because they've never published anything that wasn't verified to be true. Since that's something they can't be attacked on, it seems that the strategy for discrediting Wikileaks has now become to accuse them of association with the Russians. Assange touches on this in the AMA as well. Beyond that, only speculation remains. So why even give a shit? As long as what they're publishing is true, which it has always been so far. Let them fight each other with the truth and the people will be better off. Nothing you've said changes the validity of this article, in fact, it only distracts from it. So I'd say you're doing us a disservice by distracting from the real story here.

decisiveness 10y ago
Truth or not, I'm curious to know how the high probability that all content is curated doesn't bother you? I can't find one leak that's been damaging to Putin's agenda. That doesn't prove Russia is in control of the site, but it's curious that every single leak has been either damaging to the United States, other parties that have not had good relations with Russia or relatively inconsequential to either. The fact that Assange cannot verify he produces the content of his site only furthers the probability of Russia having seized possession of it, given there exists no damaging information to Putin's regime. Would it not be better if those leaks were exposed along with everything else?
raverbashing 10y ago
You can publish only true facts and still push a narrative
- freyr 10y ago
  > You can publish only true facts Can we go back to just calling them "facts"? A statement can be true or false, but a fact is true. You're playing into the idea that there are "false facts" or "alternative facts." There aren't. Those are lies or errors.

caminante 10y ago

edit: tl:dr; I don't think Assange signing a message with a private key would disprove he's not compromised (which was the implication). It's naive to say otherwise. > It's interesting to note that Julian Assange didn't demonstrate control of the wikileaks private key during his Reddit AMA 1 month ago It's easy to see why Assange didn't oblige, compromised or not. Minor note: the Reddit thread was from Jan 11th. This is relevant because Assange wasn't only asked to verify control of the private key. Assange hadn't appeared in public and skeptics wanted "proof of life." The Reddit comment, currently at 15K upvotes, even includes Assange's response with reasons that talk to the difficulty of maintaining private keys and avoiding taxing precedents like having to provide proof of life all the time. Again, compromised or not, I can understand why Assange wouldn't want to become conditioned to respond to every request for proof of life or locking down private keys.

trendia 10y ago

There are several elements: 1) what the material exposes 2) how it was obtained 3) why it was released We should condemn (2) and (3) even if we condemn (1). That is, a properly functioning society shouldn't need to rely on leaks for corruption and abuse of power to be exposed. At the same time, we should always respond to abuse of power and trust; to do so because we don't want to help "the bad guys" simply creates an environment in which such abuses are tolerated. Similarly, we should not assume that any comment that we disagree with is a conscious manipulation by malicious actors; otherwise, I could just as easily argue that you have some ulterior motive to post your comment.

knieveltech 10y ago
I feel like it has been very thoroughly demonstrated that we in the US do not enjoy the comforts of a properly functioning society, and as such leaks are a hard requirement for corruption and abuse of power to be exposed.
problems 10y ago
I have to disagree - leaks seem to be the only way that this information gets out and the only way that people seem to care much about privacy.
throwaway91111 10y ago
> That is, a properly functioning society shouldn't need to rely on leaks for corruption and abuse of power to be exposed How do you figure? Abuse is just use you don't agree with. If everyone in control is perpetrating the abuse, the only way forward is leaking. See: the Snowden leaks. Those in power have little incentive to restrict it. Leaks are very effective at letting people police their own government.

prodmerc 10y ago

> This comment was immediately down voted on Reddit. Someone is seeking to control the narrative. Oooor, you know, the knee jerk reaction is to downvote you because it's an unpopular opinion. Even I had it for a brief second before I realized 1. You may be right; 2. I don't really give a shit.

revelation 10y ago

I can't believe this warmongering is on top. Yes, maybe ask who is dumping what and question the authenticity, but stop trying to talk up a nuclear war on the basis of downvotes on Reddit.

coldtea 10y ago

>There is clear motive right now for undermining the CIA. And why NOT to undermine the CIA?

Cookingboy 10y ago
Because we don't live in a Disney movie where everyone gets along and lives happily ever after? Do you think if we get rid of CIA the Russians will just disband the FSB? The Chinese will just suddenly become transparent and stop all international espionage? The entire world will suddenly love US and try to suck up to the biggest superpower?
- incompatible 10y ago
  Some of us are not USians. I'd say if your goal is to make people elsewhere in the world love the US, then CIA dirty tricks isn't the way to do it. Dirty tricks by other governments wouldn't do much if the US was a genuinely beneficial influence in the world. At the moment it's not so clear that the US is beneficial, with it doing some things that are useful, but which Trump seems to want to eliminate as soon as possible, and other things that are questionable.
  - Cookingboy 10y ago
    Nope, the goal is not to make the rest of the world love the US. It is to further our own national interest while fucking over our enemies. Just like any other countries that ever existed in the history of human civilization.
    - incompatible 10y ago
      That seems about right. You have to wonder what "national interest" really means though. Something to do with making US billionaires richer than their foreign competitors, I think.
      - learc83 10y ago

megablast 10y ago

> There is clear motive right now for undermining the CIA. I think this is irrelevant and distracts from the issue. You are trying to change the narrative. If this is true, this is incredibly bad, and the CIA should be discredited.

anigbrowl 10y ago
Why is it bad? Does anyone expect spies not to have spy tools? Espionage is their job, after all.
- chillwaves 10y ago
  Maybe GP is starting to finally see the CIA how the rest of the world has seen them for say, oh the last 60 years or so.
  - anigbrowl 10y ago
    Yeah, not being American I always thought the USA was quite proud of its spy service, just the Russians are sort of proud of the KGB, the british are proud of MI6 and so on. Large countries have espionage agencies, and every government since ancient history has used spies. Put it this way, I have a Samsung TV and plan to do absolutely nothing about it. If I want something to be really private i discuss it outdoors or write it down by hand on paper. I'm kind of baffled about eh public and the media's inability to distinguish between the ability to carry out espionage and the targets against which it is deployed.
    - Koshkin 10y ago
      > really private Just be sure not to put the TV in your bedroom.
      - jerkstate 10y ago
        You mean the bedroom where you charge your phone?

tn13 10y ago

> Someone is seeking to control the narrative. China and Russia immediately come to my mind. China has been influencing american public opinion in more than subtle ways. Hollywood movies are forced or incentivises to show china is positive light. Any material manufactured in China is forced to adopt Chinese world view for example China secretly forces printers to make changes to how Taiwan or Tibet is mention in the books. NN Taleb's recent book face the same issue. The problem with CIA or US Government in general has been they have long stopped using american ideas of freedom, transparency to their own advantage while being transparent and accountable to public. Constant lies, optimising for dubiously useful goals, financial mismanagement etc. has made them less credible and very correctly so. I bet the next thing CIA would try to get Assange killed and facts suppressed only making themselves less and less credible and reducing freedom in the country. When John Kennedy appeared on television during Cuba missile crisis the American public to a large extent believed their president. After what Bush did in Iraq I think American public will not trust another President like that even in the face of a real crisis. I think that is how nations probably fail.

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

Stanish 10y ago

Hello "abandonliberty". Keep in mind, it also very clearly serves the CIA's interests to suggest that Assange is compromised, so people should take those who push this idea with perhaps greater skepticism than they do Assange himself. Also, control of a private key only demonstrates control of the machine on which that key exists, so it is not definitive proof of anything. It is possible Assange's machine was wiped or hacked, or that the person in control of that machine was killed or taken out of play. There have been multiple mysterious deaths associated with Wikileaks in the past couple years. It is conceivable that Assange never was in control of the private key and that one of those people was, in which case it makes perfect sense that he can make multiple convincing videos but not produce that specific key. Finally, the question of whether Wikileaks is "neutral" (whatever that is supposed to mean) is not particularly relevant given their implacable record of truth in reporting. The leaks are most likely completely true, and as new information, should be evaluated independently/objectively. As someone who has read a few histories of the CIA, I can say that anyone who is their enemy is my friend. Their worldview and approach to international action has caused mass human suffering on the world stage for decades, usually in the name of protecting things like unfair trade agreements, destroying unionization efforts & democracy, and eliminating political affiliations that are not in the perceived interests (in terms of world hegemony) of the US government. In popular media this is portrayed as a "necessary evil", but in reality it is a sociopathic service to power that degrades the soul of all humanity. Syria is probably the most recent example. The CIA was envisioning an eerily similar scenario to the one that is playing out right now...in 1986. [0] I encourage you to read up on their origins and history, it is a fascinating if extremely unsettling story. [0] - https://www.cia.gov/library/readingroom/docs/CIA-RDP86T01017R000100770001-5.pdf https://www.cia.gov/library/readingroom/docs/CIA-RDP86T01017...

ThrowIt76113 10y ago

Make no mistake, this is the latest salvo on the modern battlefield. This is not the result of some patriotic citizen trying to rein in what he sees as an abuse of power. This release was used as a weapon. I'm going to be wildly speculative here. Let's assume that the timing of this release helps the Trump administration and smears the US intelligence apparatus writ large. There's only one person on his team who has displayed the forethought, intelligence, and capability necessary to do something like this. Jeff Sessions obviously isn't. Bannon, while an effective and shrewd minister of propaganda not this sophisticated. There is, however, one person who thinks twelve moves ahead like a chess grandmaster. I wonder what, if any, Peter Thiel's role is in all of this

supergirl 10y ago

> This comment was immediately down voted on Reddit. Someone is seeking to control the narrative. Please...

jwtadvice 10y ago
The number of times I've had perfectly reasonable ideas downvoted immediately on reddit...

the_cat_kittles 10y ago

im suprised, i thought it was beyond question that wikileaks is basically an attack vector used by russia. i guess you are saying while that may be true, it wasn't clear that assange was actively helping to that end. my thinking is, everyone keeps things private. its fairly probable that there is as much damning info on most other orgs. in the context of wikileaks role in the 2016 election, im sure the RNC would look just as bad if they had all their dirty laundry aired. to my mind, you must consider the consequences and context when leaking, and for that reason i think wikileaks was highly unethical and they are partially culpable. there is no way assange wasnt aware of the motivations behind the leaks. so, to me, he hasn't been impartial- its a sin of inaction, not action. a third, and minor point- when assange was last interviewed on bill maher, he struck me as very careful with his words, and very talking point ish. sounded just like a politician. wouldn't give any play to bill's questions about putting thumb on the scale for trump. not much there, but weird for someone who purports to be even minded, rational, fair and pure to behave like that.

rmxt 10y ago

I'm not quite following... Who does this leak weaken?

mtgx 10y ago

This argument that "they're building a narrative" really rubs me the wrong way. Yes, they're building a narrative - by pointing out the crap the CIA has been doing. This is not unlike how the US used to point out human rights abuses by China, Russia, and so on. If the "narrative" is accurate, then that's on the CIA.

ActsJuvenile 10y ago
Is that you, magical tux?

whelp 10y ago

United Hack Of America

shard972 10y ago

> This comment was immediately down voted on Reddit. Someone is seeking to control the narrative. Reddit has been beyond terrible the last year and it didn't recover post election. There always used to be a bias but you could usually drill down into some good back and forths in the comments, now you will only find that if it even exists in heavily downvoted posts along with troll posts.

throwaway91111 10y ago
For the nth time, find good subreddits because the front page is terrible.
yAnonymous 10y ago
>the last year The Reddit front page has always been terrible. Maybe it was once terrible in your favor, but that doesn't really matter. Ever since it became popular, it has been the best place to influence millions of people and forge opinions.

throwaway91111 10y ago

> This comment was immediately down voted on Reddit. Someone is seeking to control the narrative. I can't tell whether or not this is a joke. A) of course Reddit is manipulated and B) a single vote is within the range of background noise, not signal. A vote don't mean shit.

losvedir 10y ago

> It's interesting to note that Julian Assange didn't demonstrate control of the wikileaks private key during his Reddit AMA 1 month ago So... what's the concern of people? The video seems to be clearly him, not under duress, and current. What more could someone want? If he weren't in control of wikileaks surely he would say something.

wildrhythms 10y ago
>seems to be >surely he would say something These aren't exactly reassuring statements, at least not to me.
- pessimizer 10y ago
  I'm not sure if this was a joke comment or not, but when the lack of evidence becomes evidence of concealment, you've fallen into paranoia. What would you think if your mother seemed to be fine, and you were fairly sure she would say something if she wasn't? Would you suspect someone was keeping her quiet?
  - wildrhythms 10y ago
    My mother also isn't borrowing space in an embassy while pursued by any number of highly sophisticated government agencies. For someone who so often revels in the authenticity of their work, why is the backlash so fierce when their own authenticity is questioned?

lubesGordi 10y ago

So because your completely unproven claim that wikileaks is not in the hands of a neutral party was downvoted, that means the narrative is being controlled!?

gankedfrank 10y ago

I don't know, an argument could be made that there is always cause to undermine state-run intelligence, and I'd like to think Assange knows this, but I don't have enough to be sure about it, obviously.

libertymcateer 10y ago

I appreciate your username.

69mlgsniperdad 10y ago

Reddit.. The narrative has been violently pushed and pulled 1000 directions for a couple years now. I'm not sure exactly what you're suggesting, but are you saying someone is either mind controlling him, or effecting leverage over him to coerce him to become their tool? You do believe it was indeed him in his interview with Hannity a month ago, right?

ntelson1s 10y ago

Or someone is seeking to force a narrative but can't quite decide how to do that while actually making sense and not backpedaling on accusations.

kahrkunne 10y ago

I'm pretty sure that this got immediately downvoted on reddit because it's a crackpot conspiracy theory, not because someone is seeking to control the narrative.

deevolution 10y ago

Honestly I dont care who's behind wikileaks. At the end of the day, they are helping to balance out the power of government.

jnabholz 10y ago
I don't see anything in the leaks that couldn't have been (somewhat easily) fabricated. I am still looking.
- futilefuton 10y ago
  WL, like more normal journalism outlets, relies on its reputation. They are biased, but have a very good track record for not releasing false documents. Also, Snowden says they look real so far because they contain elements only a cleared insider could know. https://twitter.com/Snowden/status/839159736977227777 https://twitter.com/Snowden/status/839159736977227777

yAnonymous 10y ago

You're either a nutjob or you have at least as much of a political motive as you claim Wikileaks have.

mind_bakery 10y ago

As has been demonstrated, the narrative is very easy to manipulate when people are lazy about how they acquire and treat data. Interestingly, this new development could also be a good thing for the CIA. A way to clean the slate as well as a rallying call for new talent with fresh minds, with far less baggage. The proliferation of this tech was inevitable. We need to set standards for responsible use. My perspective constitutionally is that it falls between the 2nd and 4th amendments, depending on intended and actual use. As a data collection tool, it should be treated with the same care as medical data.

erikbye 10y ago

What is the clear motive for undermining CIA and who is the biggest loser?

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]